7/30/2003

Roe v. Wade II: Norma McCorvey's Public Repentance

By Christine Ho

In 1980, Norma McCorvey publicly identified herself as “Jane Roe,” the Plaintiff in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that held that abortion was a constitutional right.[1] After converting to Catholicism, McCorvey shocked the pro-abortion community and joined the anti-abortion activist group Operation Rescue in 1995.[2] On June 17, 2003, McCorvey filed a motion to reopen her case, asking the same federal district court that originally heard her case to vacate the original Roe decision.[3]

As one of the original plaintiffs in Roe v. Wade, McCorvey is entitled to make such a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b)(5) states that a court may relieve a party from the court’s prior decision if “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.”[4] Allan E. Parker, McCorvey’s lead counsel, has stated that the legal question in this motion is, “Is it just to continue giving Roe v. Wade future application?”[5] Although it is unlikely that McCorvey’s legal challenge will be successful, the filing permits McCorvey to exorcise some of the demons that have haunted her by taking a public stance against abortion.

McCorvey’s attorneys cite three changes in law and factual conditions since the Supreme Court decided Roe more than 30 years ago—changes they believe undermine the decision. First, McCorvey and 1,000 other women have filed signed affidavits stating that their abortions resulted in devastating emotional, physical and psychological damage.[6] These affidavits are the largest body of evidence in the world concerning the detrimental effects of abortion on women. Second, McCorvey’s attorneys argue that the major unanswered question in Roe—the question of when human life begins—has now been answered. They cite scientific evidence that they say conclusively shows that life begins at conception.[7] Due to this factual change, they argue that the Court can no longer state, as it did in Roe, that a woman’s choice to have an abortion outweighs the state’s interests in protecting the fetus’s life. Finally, they argue that Texas, like 40 other states, has enacted a “Baby Moses” law, through which the state agrees to provide for any woman’s unwanted child from the child’s birth to 18 years of age with no questions asked.[8] This change in the law since Roe was decided undermines the argument that impoverished women must seek an abortion to avoid any unwanted burdens of motherhood.

However, only two days after the motion was filed, the federal district court dismissed the motion stating that the request was not made within a “reasonable” time.[9] Hence, the court did not examine the merit of McCorvey’s claims at all. The court stated that Rule 60 motions are usually made weeks or months after litigation, not thirty years later. “Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation. It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment,” wrote Judge David Godbey in the ruling.[10]

McCorvey has appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and though it is unlikely that the court will reverse the decision, McCorvey’s efforts may be the first step in relieving her of the guilt she has borne for the Roe decision. In a press conference for the Rule 60 motion, McCorvey said, “I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders. I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and justice for what is right.”[11]







Endnotes


  1. Court Says “No” to Roe, CBS News, at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/
    06/17/national/main559102.shtml (July 10, 2003).

  2. Norma McCorvey, Press Biography of Norma McCorvey, Roe No More Ministry, at http://www.roenomore.org/press/index.htm (July 9, 2003) [hereinafter Press Biography of Norma McCorvey].

  3. Press Release, Operation Outcry, History in the Making – “Roe” Files Motion to Re-Open Roe v. Wade, The Landmark Case Legalizing Abortion (June 17, 2003) (available at http://www.operationoutcry.com/June17PressRelease2003.pdf) [hereinafter Press Release].

  4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).

  5. Press Release.

  6. Id.

  7. Id.

  8. Id.

  9. McCorvey v. Wade, No. 3:03-CV-1340-N (C.C.N.D.T.X. June 19, 2003), available at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/roewade61903ord.pdf.

  10. Id.

  11. Press Release.


Bookmark and Share